DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 287 776 SO 018 492

AUTHOR Scholnick, Ellin Kofsky; And OthersTITLE Changing Predictors of Map Use in Wayfinding.PUB DATE Apr 87NOTE 29p.; Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the

Society of Research in Child Development (Baltimore,MD, April, 1987).

PUB TYPE Reports - Descriptive (141) -- Speeches/ConferencePapers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Early Childhood Education; Encoding (Psychology);

Geography; Learning Processes; *Locational Skills(Social Studies); *Map Skills; Memory; Recall(Psychology); *Social Studies; Spatial Ability

ABSTRACTUsing a map for guiding travel requires: (1) skills

in encoding information from a terrain and a map; (2) finding a matchbetween the two; add (3) maintaining the match despite directionalshifts from turn: on a route. In order to test this analysis, 94children between the ages of 4 and 6 used maps to locate the route toa goal through a network of paths with blind alleys. Two tasks wereused as predictors of skill in map use. Laurendeau and Pinard's testof the localization of topological positions (LOTOP) suppliedmeasures of memory encoding, correspondence, and rotation. The childcopied an examiner's placements on a board when the boards werealigned or one was rotated 180 degrees. Placements were nearlandmarks or in an open field. The landmarks were then removed andthe child had to recall their location (encoding). On the mentalrotation test (MR), the child chose a rotated letter-like form tomatch a standard. Younger children's map errors were predicted bymental rotation skill (MR and LOTOP rotated board scores) andlandmark placements. Older children's map errors were predicted byrecall of landmark positions (memory encoding). (SM)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

CHANGING PREDICTORS OF MAP USE

IN WAYFINDING

by

Ellin Kofsky ScholnickGreta G. Fein

Patricia F. Campbell

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

11; Kcl,,,I nick

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Education& Research and Improvement

EDUCATtONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

q,e4 document nas been reproduced OSreceived from the person or oronizationonconenng it

O Minor changes nave been made to improvereproduction duality

Points of view or opinions stated in this dOCtrment do not necessarily represent official0E111 position or policy

CHANGING PREDICTORS OF MAP USE IN

WAYFINDING. .

Ellin Kofsky Scholnick, Greta

G. Fein & Patricia F. Campbell

University of Maryland, College Park

Research presented at the Society of Research in Child Development

Bibennial Meeting, Baltimore,MD Apri1,1987

The authors would like to thank Shirley Schwartz and

Rita Frank who were collaborators on this project, Jane Sims

and Indrani Andamaskara for thir contributions to the design

and data collection for this project and the staff and stuoents

of the Early Learning Centers and the Center for Young Children

at the University of Maryland, College Park for their participat-

ion. Funding for data analysis was provided, in part, by the

Computer Science Center, University of Maryland.

Predicting Map Use2

Abstract

Map use to guide travel may require skill in encoding infor-

mation from a terrain and a map, finding a match between the

two, and maintaning the match despite directional shifts from

turns on a route. To test this analysis194 4-to 6-yr.-olds

used maps to locate the route to a goal through a network of

paths with blind alleys. Two tasks were used as predictors of

skill in map use. Laurendeau and Pinard's test of the local-

ization of topological positions (LOTOP) supplied measures of

memory encoding, correspondence and rotation. The child had

to copy an examiner's placements on a board when the boards

were aligned or one was rotated 180 degrees. Placements were

near landmarks or in the open field. The landmarks were then

removed and the child had to recall their location (encoding).

On the mental rotation test (MR),the child chose a rotated

letter-like form to match a standard. Younger children's

map errors were predicted by mental rotation skill (MR

and LOTOP rotated board scores) and landmark placements.

Older children's map errors were predicted by recall of

landmark positions (memory encoding).

4

Predicting Map Use3

Factor, chronometric, and meta-analyses of spatial tasks

suggest that spatial ability consists of a variety of skills

and many spatial tasks tap more than one of them (e.g. Horan

& Rosser,1984; Linn & Peterson, 1985; McGee,1979; Pellegrino

& Kai1,1982). Prominent among these skills are visualization,

or the ability to encode and analyze a spatial pattern, and

mental rotation, the ability to imagine the consequence of a

spatial rotation of either the viewer or the object.

However, individual difference studies rarely include

preschool samples, so we know little about the pattern of abilities

in young children, the contribution of these abilities to performance

on any given spatial task, and the consistency of patterns of

correlations across early childhood. For example,there has

been little investigation of the spatial abilities which underlie

an important practical skill, wayfinding with a map. Reading

a map requires integration of many skills, each of which undergoes

development. First,to understand a map, the child must encode

the spatial layout of the terrain the map represents. That terrain

can be conceptualized in terms of its relation to the viewer,

in terms of isolated landmarks, integrated networks of roads

and locations, or with reference to a system of spatial coordinates

(Cqusins,Siegel & Maxwel1,1983; Huttenlocher & Newcombe,1984;

Siegel & White, 1975). Second, maps are not mirrors of the terrains

they represent. Reading a map requires mastery of a symbol system

and cartographic conventions. Maps vary in the degree to which

they use abstract symbols and in the kinds or information they

5

P ex

Predicting Map Use4

encode about distance and elevation, 'so children may differ

in the degree to which map information is accesible to them

(e.g. Liben & Downs, 1986). Third, in order to establish a corres-

pondence between the terrain and a map of it, the child must

also learn how to interpret differences in scale, depth and

perspective between the terrain and its graphic representation.

Presumably, as children's comprehension of scale, depth and

perspective increases, so should their ability to establish

a correspondence between the map and the terrain. Using a map

in wayfinding involves a fourth skill, mental rotation. Rotation

may enter in at the beginning of wayfinding when a viewer must

align the map with the terrain. Often preschoolers have difficulty

with establishing that alignment (e.g. Bluestein & Acredolo,

1979; Presson, 1982 ). In addition mental rotation skills may

help travellers to maintain a map-terrain correspondence despite

shifts in location and direction resulting from progress on

a route which changes directions and despite errors in following

a marked route. Hence map usage, like other spatial tasks, requires

encoding of single elements and configurations, matching ability

and rotation skill.

The focus of much research on map reading has been on how

each of these skills develop, since map reading provides a window

for examining children's symbolic and spatial competence (e.g.

Gardner,1983 ; Bluestein & Acredolo,1979; Presson,1982). The

usual method of investigation has been to either manipulate

the properties of maps (e.g. Scholnick, Frank ,Fein & Schwartz,1986)

6

Predicting Map Use5

or to use map performance to make inferences about the growth

of separate component skills. In this study we take another

approach, examining individual differences in map performance

as assessed by some marker tasks (see also Liben & Downs,1986).

Because there has been a great deal of emphasis on spatial encoding

and visualization,and because we have Just argued that map usage

requires such skills, we included several different measures

of encoding derived from a version of a Piagetian task (Piaget

& Inhelder, 1967). The task involved two terrains placed side

by side. The terrains contained roads and houses. The examiner

placed a figure on one terrain and asked the child to place

a similar figure on the identical spot on the child's terrain.

Like map reading, this task requires the child to rstablish

a correspondence between one spatial array and another, but

unlike a map task, the two arrays are identical ,so the child

need not make any transformations of scale or translations of

symbols. One encoding measure gauged the child's ability to

think in terms of single locations. The figure was placed near

a landmark. A second task required the child to reproduce locations,

but there was no adjacent landmark so the child had to use the

entire configuration of the terrain to make the placement. In

a third measure, the landmarks were removed from both boards

and the child had to replace them. To do so the child had to

remember the configuration of the entire board. Two measures

of mental rotation were also included. One was derived fromi

the Piagetian task, reproduction of locations when the examiner's

7

Predicting Map Use6

and the child's bcard were not aligned. The second involved

rotation of single figures, rather than an array.

We examined two models of performance. The first suggests

that there is age invariance in the skills required to use maps. In

the period from four to six and a half years, children's success

is based upon coordinating both visualization and rotation skills.

The second model presumes there are developmental differences. We

know, for example, that +here are different strategies of performing

mental rotation tasks( Cooper11982 ). Perhaps there are also

different strategies for using maps in way finding which reflect

differences in how the child conceptualizes the terrain and

the task itself. At first the key skill for wayfinding using

a map is the one we use when wayfinding when we lack a map. We

must maintain orientation from the place of departure despite

rotation. Young children may also conceptualize the terrain

in terms of isolated landmarks (Siegel & White,1975). Hence

skill in mental rotation and landmark encoding are the best

predictors of map usage. Later in development, the child may

have be more aware of the utility of a map and skill in map

reading may vary with the extent to which the child can retain

information derived from glances at map and from the child's

ability to conceptualize the map as a configuration of spatial

information which corresponds to the landscape (Frank, 1986). Thus

complex encoding and recall skills would be more predictive

of performance than ability to imagine spatial rotations.

In summary, we examined map usage 4n two groups of children,

8

Predicting Map Use7

four-year-olds and five to six year-olds. The children's ability

to encode a terrain and remember it were also assessed as well

as their ability to deal with the consequences of mental rotation.

Method

Participants:

The sample consisted of 94 children attending three schools

in the same suburban area, a University nursery school and two

suburban day care centers. The population was middle class

and of diverse ethnicities. Therms were 48 males and 46 females,whom

we divided into two age groups. The younger group contained

48 children between 48 and 63 months of age CM = 57 mos.) and

the older group consisted of 46 children between 64 and 79 mos

CM = 70 mos.). Within each age, there were approximately the

same number of boys as girls.

Procedures:

Predictors of route map performance were derived from

two tasks. Those tasks and the map task are described in

turn.

Localization of Topographical PositionsCLOTOP). The LOTOP

task was originally developed by Piaget and Inhelder 01967)

to test steps towards the emergence of an objective spatial

reference system used to locate objects in a terrain. According

to Piaget children rely at first on a self-reference system

in which the location of objects is coded with reference to

the child's viewing perspective. The first step away from

this subjective perspective is the encoding of objects with

9

Predicting Map Usee

reference to landmarks and then in open field positions where

locations are defined with reference to the layout of the entire

space and not in terms of adjancy to particular objects within

it. In time, locations of objects can be described independently

of the viewer's position in space so that objects can be located

even when the position of the terrain is rotated. Our procedures

and scoring criteria are derived from a standardized version

of the task reported by Laurendeau and Pinard (1970).

The task was presented on two identical posterboard terrains

(35 X 47 cm.). Each terrain was divided by an intersecting

road and track into four unequal quadrants drawn on the posterboard.

See Figure 1. Each terrain contained five toy houses of assorted

sizes and colors, scattered at three locations. The child and

examiner at on opposite sides of the testing table midway between

the two boards. At first the two boards were aligned. The examiner

placed a toy figure on the board to the child's right and the

child had to copy its placement on the other board. There were

12 placements, 7 near landmarks (A-G), and 5 (H-L) in open field

positions. These were administered in a fixed order as in the

original Laurendeau and Pinard procedure. Then the examiner's

board was rotated 180 degrees and the child was asked to reproduce

the same 12 placements.

Insert Figure 1 about here

Upon completion of the 24 placements, the three-dimensional

10

. . ---"..;

Predicting Map Use9

landmarks were removed from both boards. One set was given to

the child who was asked to return them to their original locations

on the child's board (the unrotated one).

In order to facilitate accuracy of scoringlthe test boards

were covered with clear plastic sheets marked by small, barely

noticeable slits varying in size. Larger slits marked the locations

of three-dimensional landmarks ano the boundaries within which

a response would be considered correct, a circle with a 2-3

cm radius around the target location. Smaller slits acted as

foils. From these placements, four scores were derived:

(1)LPU-the total number of correct placements out of 12 on the

unrotated board; (2) LPR-the total number of correct placements

out of 12 on the rotated board ; (3)LPL-the total number of

correct placements near landmarks regardless of board position

from a maximum of 14, and (4) LPOF-the total number of correct

open field placements regardless of board alignment out of a

total of 10. The second pair of scores is merely a recategori-

zation of the first pair of scores so that the two sets (1 and

2 vs. 3 and 4) were never used in the same regression analysis. LPL

scores represent reliance on landmark features or a topological

framework to judge locations. LPOF represents the ability to

code locations with reference to the entire board configuration;

LPU taps the ability to establish a correspondence between arrays

while LPR taps the ability to transpose an array.

In addition, a memory encoding score was derived from the

child's recall of the location of the landmarks. There were

11

Predicting Map Use10

three clusters of landmarks. Each cluster replacement received

a score of one point for accuracy of quadrant location,one point

. for accuracy of alignment of the building, and one point for

placement within 3 cm. of the exact location of the original

landmark location.

Mental Rotation Tc;t. The mental rotation test was derived

from Thurstone's (1958) Primary Mental Abilities Battery. It

consisted of 17 items in which the child was to choose one of

three comparison figures to match an assymmetricai 4 cm tall

letter-like form. See Figure 2. One choice was a rotation of

the standard figure and the two foils were tirror images of

the standard rotated to the same degree as the correct choice

to the right and to the left. The st 12 trials consisted

on three presentations each of figures with rotations of 30,45,90,

125, 160, and 180 degrees to the left or right. During those

trials,the child was given a carboard cut out shape painted

black on its top and red on the underside. The child was asked

to match the cutout to the standard figure, to pretend that

the figure was rotated, and then choose the figure that would

result from the rotation. The child then verified the correctness

of the choice by rotating the cardboard shape on the chosen

figure, and if the choice was in error, finding the correct

match. Verification was discontinued in the last five trials

which consisted of a new set of forms with rotations of 30,

45, 90, 125, and 160 degrees. Performance on the first and second

parts of the test was correlated (r=.53) so the MRT score was

12

Predicting Map Use11

the total numh,,r of initial correct choices.

Insert Figures 2 and 3 about here

Map Task. The map task required the child to use route

maps to take a toy to certain locations. The children worked

on three terrains,two during an introductory task, and one during

the experimental task. Each resembled the kind of material usually

used in nursery school constructions of model towns. We used

an small,artificial landscape in order to control and equate

features of the pathways. The terrain in the experimental task

was a 106.7 x 182.9 cm. green formboard depicting four networks

of 3.8 cm. wide yellow paths and two blue rivers separating

the path networks from one another (see Figure 3). Every path

network contained equally spaced forks in which one branch led

onward to the next but the other branches ended at an identical

tan 3.8 X 3.8 X 3.8 cm block house. An animal sticker was pasted

beneath one house at the last (goal) fork.

The four path networks differed in the number of forks

( 3 or 4) they contained and the total number of branches across

all forks (8 or 12). The 3-12 network had 3 forks each with

4 branches; the 3-8 path network also had 3 forks but only 8

branches; the 4-12 path network had 4 forks with 12 branches

distributed among them and the 4-8 network had 4 forks, each

with 2 branches, for a total of 8. The number of required left

and right turns, curved and straight forks and goals to the

13

Predicting Map Use12

left and right of the starting point were counterbalanced across

the paths. The paths on the introductory task were drawn on

smaller boards and contained one or t1410 two-branched forks.

Each path network was represented by a black and white

1t6 scale map depicting the entire path network with the correct

route to the goal house marked by a series of black arrows connected

by a yellow line. The only house shown on the map was the goal

house which was symbolized by an animal sticker identical to

the one pasted beneath the goal house on the actual terrain.

Hence the map differed in scale, dimensionality, detail and

symbolization from the actual terrain.

The child began the task with an introduction to Clyde,

a toy caterpillar, who wished to visit friends who lived on

one of the small terrains. The child was told that a map would

show the child how to find his friends. The child then progressed

through a set of routines that was used on e4ch subsequent route.

The child was shown the map and asked to trace the route to

the friend with a finger. Next the child was taken to the start

of the path an the terrain. The map was aligned with the path

network and placed at the child's right as the child faced the

terrain. The map remained there available for consultation. The

child was then given Clyde and asked to take him along the path

to the friend's house. Upon reaching the house, the child was

asked to check beneath it for the presence of the appropriate

sticker. If the wrong house was chosen, the child was encouraged

to consult the map and continue the search. On the first trial

14

Predicting Map Use13

alone, the route and direction of turns on the map were described

during the child's travels. Then the child worked unaided on

two more introductory paths before moving to the larger terrain. Here

the child learned that Clyde's friends had arranged a birthday

surprise for him. There were four pieces of a puzzle that, when

assembled, would identify the prize. The child was to help Clyde

find the pieces, each located at a different friend's home on

a different path network. At the end, the puzzle depicting a

hot air baloon was assembled and the child was allowed to take

Clyde for a ride in a miniature balloon.

The task was administered by one experimenter and a second

served as an observer recording Clyde's movements on a duplicate

map. In a separate reliability study two observers simultaneously

recorded eight children on the same task. There was 95 % agreement

on the record of child movement along each path segment.

An error was defined as taking the wrong direction through

a fork by either choosing the wrong branch or backtracking to

an earlier fork. Errors were summed across all four terrains.

Results and Discussion

Age differences in level of performance.Table 1 presents

the scores for the six predictor variables and map performance.

A Manova comparing the scores of the two age groups on map,

mental rotation, memory encoding scoresand LOTOP placer nts

divided by rotated and unrotated boards revealed significantly

better performance for the older group in general, F(5186)=7.32,

a <.001. Univariate tests of each dependent variable also yielded

15

Predicting Map Use14

significant F ratios(df= 1,90, p_ <.02) showing better performance

by the older children on each measure: Map errors F= 18.99,

Mental Rotation, F= 29.69, LPU,F= 11.27, LPR F= 5.92, Memory

encoding= 11.26. In a second Manova in which the landmark-open

categorization was substituted for rotated and unrotated boards,older

children also performed significantly better, Multivariate F

(5,86)=7.14, E <.001 and the two new dependent variables produced

significant univariate F-ratios for age, F (1, 90)= 8.14 for

landmark placements, and F (1,90)= 9.35, E <.005. In similar

tests assessing gender differences, one univariate test showed

a significant dif4erence favoring males, landmark placements

F (1,90)= 4.16, E <.05. When tests were done within each age

group,the sex differences were localized within the younger

group.

PaL,erns of performance. Because age contributes to each

task, subsequent analyses were done with age partialled out. Table

2 presents task correlations within the two age groups with

age and sex partialled out. We then estimated the scores for

each task by partialling out age effects and did multiple regression

analyses on the residuals. Table 3 shows the results of multiple

regression analyses of map errors for the entire group and for

each age. This table includes standardized coefficients which

index the degree to which each variable uniquely accounted for

map errors. Two regression analyses were computed at each age. In

one, the predictors of map errors were mental rotation, LOTOP

scores divided by board alignment (LPU, LPR), and encoding. The

16

1

i1

Predicting Map Use15

adjusted R2 for younger children was .41 Three variables made

significant and unique contributions to performance, mental

rotation and LP unrotated and rotated placements. When the same

regression analysis was done on performance in the older group,the

multiple R2 was lower (.23 )and an entirely different variable,memory

encoding, was the sole significant unique predictor. In a second

set of analyses, the LOTOP scores were instead divided by landmark

versus open field placements. The adjusted Ra for the younger

group was .43 and two variables made unique and significant

contributions to performance, landmark placements and as before,

mental rotation. In contrast, the R2 was lower for the older

group .24, and as before, the only significant predictor was

mental encoding although open field placements and mental rotation

were contributing somewhat to performance (2_ <.10). Thus the

two groups of children were drawing on different abilities to

do the route map task. In the younger sample the key correlates

of map reading ability are skill in mental rotation of a single

figure and landmark knowledge (see also Liben & Downs, 1986). The

partial correlations of Table 2 suggest that for younger children

the ability to rotate a single figure is not related to the

ability to imagine placements when a whole terrain is rotated. In

contrast in the older group mental rotation of a single figure

plays a lesser role. It does so for two reasons. First, mental

rotation is related to others of the predictors so that it no

longer contributes as much unique variance. The ability to imagine

the consequences of rotating a single figure is related to dealing

17

.1 - :1-7. L. 1

Predicting Map Use16

with the consequences of rotating an entire landscape and to

skill in using landmarks to make judgments of location. Secondly,

the older child seems to be drawing on a set of abilities which

will solve the task in a different way.

How does one handle a map task? One way is by trial and

error search of the terrain with minimal reference to a map. If

there are errors, it becomes important to maintain one's orientation

relative to the start position in order to avoid backtracking. Mental

rotation skills are important in maintaining that orientation.

Alternatively the individual can begin by encoding an image

of the map route which is consulted when choosing branches at

an intersection. The more one encodes in the original image,

the less the map needs to be consulted in making a choice. Hence

the adequacy of the initial encoding of the map guides the

wayfinding process.

In summary these data suggest that multiple spatial

skills enter into map reading performance when the task is

finding one's way on a route. Moreover those skills shift with

age. The shift does not occur because older children reach

a ceiling on the map task or on the marker tasks. Rather the

the task is conceptualized differently in several resepcts. The

child may be encoding the map and terrain as a coherent whole

rather than as isolated bits of information and the child may

be using the map .differently in guiding search and repairing

errors. Moreover metal rotation skills may be less task specific.

However, the data raise two related,intriguing questions.

18

Predicting Map Use17

What covaries with age and what accounts for the unexplained

variance? What other skills might be important? One is whether

the child understands the advantage of using a map. Several

of our younger children appeared to be searching directly,

rather than consulting the material. Liben and Downs (1986)

suggest that operativity or the logical framework which one

employs might be implicated. Certain nonspatial skills

involving quantification and symbolization might be implicated.

Certainly skills in analyzing a path, and ordering its parts

would facilitate wayfinding and map consultation (e.g. Scholnick

et al.,1986). Frank (1986) implicates metacognitive skills used

to signal when it is generally necessary to consult a map (at

choice points) and when the child, in particular needs, more

information.

19

Predicting Map Use18

References

Bluestein, N., & Acredolo, L. (1979). Developmental changes

in map-reading skills. Child Development, 50, 691-697.

Cooper, L. A.(1982). Strategies for visual comparison and repres-

entation: Individual differences. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),Advances

in the psychology of human intelligence(Vol.1, pp.77-124).

Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum.

Cousins, J.H., Siegel, A.W., & Maxwell, S.(1983). Wayfinding

and cognitive mapping in large-scale environments: A test

of a developmental model.Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 35, 1-20.

Frank, R.(1986). Mapreading skills in children. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College

Park.

Gardner, H.(1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelli-

gences. New York: Basic Books.

Horan, P.F. & Rosser, R.A. (1984). A multivariate analysis of

spatial abilities by sex. Developmental Review, 11_ 387-411.

Huttenlocher,., & Newcombe, N. (1985). The child's representation

of information about location. In C. Sophian (Ed.).The

origin of cognitive skills (pp. 81-111). Hillsdale, N.J.:

Erlbaum.

Laurendeau, M. & Pinard, A. (1970). The development of the

concept of space in the child. New York : International

Universities Press.

Liben, L. S., & Downs, R. M. (1987). Children's comprehension

20

Predicting Map Use19

and production of maps: increasing graphic literacy.

Final report to the National Institute of Education.

(#G-83-0025).

Linn, M. C. & Peterson, A.C. (1985). Emergence and characterization

of sex' differences in spatial ability: A metanalysis. Child

Development, 161. 1479-1498.

McGee, M.G.(1979). Human spatial abilities:Psychometric studies

and environmental, genetic, hormonal and neurological influ-

ences.Psychological Bulletin,26i 889-918.

Pellegrino, J.W., & Kail, R.Jr. (1982). Process analyses of

spatial aptitude. In. R. Sternberg (Ed.).advances in the

psychology of human intelligence. (Vol.1, pp.311-365).

Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child's conception of

space. New Yorks Norton.

Presson, C.C. (1982). The development of map-reading skills.

Child Development, 53, 193-199.

Scholnick, E. K., Frank, R.E., Fein, G.G., & Schwartz, S.

(1986). Routes to representation. Paper delivered

at the Jean Piaget Society, Phialdelphia, June,1986.

Siegel, A. W., & White, S.H. (1975). The development of spatial

representations of large-scale environmc)ts. In H.W. Reese

(Eds), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol.10

pp.9-55). New Yorks Academic Press.

Thurstone, T.G. (1958). Manual for the SRA primary mental abilities.

Chicago: Science Research Associates.

21

Predicting Map Use20

Table 1. A9e Differencas in Performance on the Map and Spatial

Tasks

Younger Group Older Group Maximum Score

Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Map Errors 13.8 8.0 7.7 6.1 40

MRT Correct 7.1 2.2 10.3 3.2 17

LOTOP Correct

LPUnrotated 7.6 2.2 9.0 1.8 12

LPRotated 3.5 2.0 4.7 2.5 12

LPLandmark 8.1 2.0 9.6 2.1 14

LPOpenField 3.0 1.9 4.2 2.0 10

Memory Encoding 5.1 2.3 6.6 1.9 9

22

Predicting Map Use21

Table 2. Task Intercorrelations (with age and sex effects partialled

out) .

YOUNGER CHILDREN

MRT ENC LPU LPR LPLA LPOF

MAP -.48* -.12 -.45* -.34 -.49* -.29

MRT -.01 +.11 -.,06 +.02 +.04

ENC +.26 +.19 +.14 +.33

LPU +.34 +.63* +.78*

LPR +.79* +.49*

LPLA +.35

OLDER CHILDREN

MAP -.311 -.403 -.35 -.26 -.33 -.29

MRT +.07 +.23 +.47* +.47* +.28

ENC +.21 +.12 +.35 -.06

LPU +.29 +.54* +.70*

LPR +.83* +.63*

LPLA +.46*

* E .05

23

Predicting Map Use22

Table 3. Predictors of Map Performance When Age is Partialled

Out from Each Score(Standardized Coefficients)

Variable Total Group Young Old

(N=94) (N- 49) (N= 46)

LPU -.31* -.33* -,21

LPR -.11 -.29* -.06

Encoding -.14 +.01 -.34*

MRT -.29* -.46* -.21

R2 .27 .41 .23

LPL -.27* -.46* -.04

LPOF -.13 -.13 -.26

Encoding -.14 -.02 -.42*

MRT -.27* -.46* -.24

R2 .25 .43 .24

24

Predicting Map Use23

Figure Captions

Fig.1 Score sheet for the LOTOP Task

Fig.2 Score sheet for the Mental Rotation Task

Fig.3 A Schematic Drawing of the Terrain showing the location

of just the Goal House and start of the Path

25

Nana: Sex:

Test Mather: Test acininisrator:

Date administered:

laurendeau and Pinard localization of 7tpograchical Positions

Scores for Test 1 Scores for Test 2

Analysis of scores: Circle problem if correct. Underline problem if incorrect.

'nest 1: Sequence of problem: A, B, L, C, F, 11, E, D, J, IC, G, and I (Rotated 180 degrees)

Test 2: Sequence of problems: B, D, G, A, L, E, K, I, J, It, C, and F

Univac sequence:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3 0 31 32 33 34 35 36filllf Hi HilltHrnl"

27.

'METAL ROTATIONS TEST -- F JRE SHEET

I. D. No. Time at start

Sex Time at finish

Age Birthdate Examiner,

Trial 1 IPLevel 1 (slide)

Level 2 (30° R)

Level 3 (300 L)

Level 4 (4S° R)

Trial 2 BID

Level 1 (4S° R)

Level 2 (90° L)

Level 3 (90° R)

Level 4 (12S° L)

Trial 3 .03

Level 1 (12S°L)

One

Position'

Two Three Comments

C

C- )

C

Level 2 (160° R)

Level 3 (160° L)

Level 4 (180u)

C

C

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

Test 4

Test S

."genraik:=TA0CA141-;--- '_ Aged:

29-;:...::...;